Skip to main content

About your Search

20120930
20121008
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
's to raise -- is this any way to cover an election? it is a really good question. i am sure the profession -- will start -- sparked great conversations and give as good ideas as well. this looks like a fascinating program and we're very proud to hosted. thank you very much and welcome. [applause] >> thank you very much. novelette to hand the floor over to james klurfeld stonybrook, a longtime reporter at newsday who will lead our panel -- now i would like to hand over the floor to james klurfeld, a longtime reporter at newsday who will lead our panel her >> thank you. nunnelee introduce the people on the panel. michael howe, the chemical co- founder of the 4th estate project and the architect of the platform who bundled enterprises. the focus on influences him driving media coverage of the election 2012. he has a very interesting presentation to make for us. to my immediate left is amy davidson, a senior editor at the "new yorker." she has been there since 1995. next is anna sale, a political reporter for wnyc-radio. she covered the gop primaries. my condolences. she appears on the brian l
are running to be not just a senator from nebraska, but a u.s. senator. if elected, how would you balance the economic interests of agriculture with those of the nation as a hole. should congress require the use of 15 billion gals a year for ethanol when critics say that raises food prices for everyone? >> the nation he is and agriculture is align. we have a surplus. the interests of agriculture and the united states are aligned. i am appalled that neither governor romney or president obama is talking about agriculture in this campaign. it is the foundation of the u.s. economy. i fought for ethanol since i was governor. it has been a great success. it has lowered the price of fuel, improved the quality of economy. it has created tens of thousands of jobs. it is a great example of bipartisan efforts. there is a new company with 100 yards. -- with 100 jobs. the governor and senator worked together with the champion better of commerce and brought the jobs here. this isn't a threat to our economy. the interests of agriculture and the united states of america are completely aligned. there is n
forward. that's the choice in this election. and that's why i'm running for a second term. that's what we need. now, my opponent has been trying to do a two-step and reposition and got -- got an extreme makeover. [applause] but the bottom line is his underlying philosophy is the top-down economics that we've seen before. he thinks that if we just spend another $5 trillion on tax cuts that yes, skewed toward the wealthiest, if we get rid of more regulations on wall street, then our problems will be solved. jobs and prosperity will rain down from the sky. the deficits will magically disappear. we will live happily ever after. [laughter] even though he's been proposing this plan for months now, he's had a little trouble explaining just how it would work without blowing a hole in the deficit or making middle class families pick up the tab. the other night he ruled out asking millionaires and billionaires to pay even a dime more in taxes. he said there's no way that he would close the loophole that gives big oil companies billions each year in corporate welfare. ending tax breaks for corporati
for political purposes, perhaps for election purposes. and i'm not sure that plighting our intentions to put out difficult nit time lines was and would be the smartest answer. you've got people over there that want to do us harm. you've got the taliban there that think about human bppings differently than we do. we know about the atrosstiss to women. and so we haven't done a good enough job in educating our country about the bad guys that exist. that we need to meet them offshore before they come on shore. it's only been ten years since 9/11. >> first of all, i applaud the president for having brought our sons and daughters home from iraq. a war we should have never been in and a war i voted against. i have been an advocate in changing our policy in afghanistan to count terrorism. we're trying to prop up a government in afghanistan. couldn't terrorism requires far less troops and focuses at striking against al qaeda sweledl as well as any taliban insurjents we might need for the purpose of our fight. i believe that the draw down in afghanistan is well positioned. i'm actually an advocate of some
from nebraska, but a u.s. senator. if elected, how will you balance economic interests of agriculture with those of the nation, and should confiscate any to require use of up to 15 billion gallons a year of ethanol, taking 40% of the nation's corn crop, when critics say that raises food prices for everyone? >> the critics are wrong. the nation plus interests in agriculture are aligned. it is one of our most competitive industry. the interest of agriculture and the united states are aligned and i am appalled that neither governor romney or president obama is talking about agriculture in this campaign. it is an important part, a foundation of the u.s. economy. ethanol, i fought for ethanol since i was governor. it has lowered the price of fuel. it is created tens of thousands of jobs. i was in blair last week, a great example of bipartisan effort. there is a new dcompany with a hundred jobs. is is not a failure. this is not a threat to our economy. the interest of agriculture and the united states are completely in alignment. there's no need to choose. >> senator fischer? >> i grew up i
20. that puts the issue off until after the election. i think it would rather not have the court be part of the election run-up and i think that, if the court had granted on the same-sex marriage in any of these, that factor more into the campaigns than it already has. i think the chief justice would rather have the court lie low in terms of the political realm. with the history of proposition 8, california has several iterations of proposition 22, which said there would be no same-sex marriage in the state. that was found unconstitutional under the california constitution. then the court found that the california constitution already provides for same-sex marriage under the protection clause. there was a brief time when same-sex marriages were performed in california. simultaneously with that, there was proposition 8 been prepared and then the election the past that with a 52% majority as a referendum to say that amends the california constitution saying that, no, marriages between a man and woman. that presented an interesting history. in this case, it was a sensational trial.
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)